Sunday, 12 August 2018

MCCANNS - THE CASE AGAINST THE POLITICIANS


In my honest opinion, I think there was a major 'Oops'  moment in Downing Street, when the missing Madeleine story was called in.  It was early hours of the morning, and everyone who responded was acting on pure emotion - a little English girl had been abducted (why not kidnapped?), it was a case of act first, think later.
 
I am sure within days, the PM etc, were made aware of the suspicions surrounding the parents, but it would have been hugely unpopular if they suddenly withdrew their support.  Instead, they went with it.  Capitalising on the huge public response to this case, it brought home the dangers of the internet (yeh, I know), and the dangers of random strangers stealing toddlers from their beds as if it were a clear and present danger with all children at risk.  
 
Blair, it would seem decided to continue with the lie, by providing the McCanns with a Government press spokesman.  However, there is not a cut and dry case against Blair.  He could say, that with the limited information he had, he chose to give the parents the benefit of the doubt and that would not be unreasonable.
 
However, by July of 2007, Blair et al, appear to have stepped back and Clarence Mitchell appears to have gone rogue.  That is, he was no longer working for the government, he was working for the McCanns.  I believe his fees were being paid by one of their benefactors.
 
One of the most significant interviews later in the summer was with Vanity Fair.  Gerry, and probably Clarence too, thought they were talking 'off the record', hence we have the ghoulish 'marketing ploy' from Gerry and the admission by Clarence that government ministers wouldn't speak to them!They were offered 'low level' consular assistance, but they wanted a lot more and clearly weren't getting it.
 
The case against Blair.  On the one hand it is admirable that Downing Street responded so quickly, and so unreservedly, to the plight of Gerry and Kate McCann.  Kudos to them on being a compassionate government, but how come they never sent spokesmen etc to any other British citizens abroad?  Regardless, that goes into the whole 'class' issue, no government assistance was offered to Karen Matthews. 
 
There is a saying, that I really must look up, 'if someone shows you who they are, believe them'.  Clarence, feeling the same hurt and rejection as Gerry, wanted outrage at the fact that the politicians weren't listening to them.  An error on the part of Clarence, because their stance at the time, was that everyone believed them and everyone supported them.  Only haters questioned the abduction story.
 
I think the involvement of British expert Mark Harrison changed the dynamic of the investigation.  He advised the Portuguese police to investigate the parents and he advised bringing in the blood and cadaver dogs.  I think from then on, the McCanns or should I say, Team McCann were on their own.
 
Those claiming that this case remains unsolved because of the involvement of powerful politicians, don't seem to understand politics.  In this country, we have a democracy, and hard as it may seem to believe, politicians are not above the Law. 
 
Let's look at this logically.  Begin with who are these politicians who are perverting the course of justice?  PMs and Home Secretaries have limited tenure.  Any crimes they indulge in, end with them.  They are not passed on to their successors.  The timeline of this case has seen several changes of government.  And changes in leadership of police agencies, such as CEOP.  Each comes with their own set of values and ideals.  No-one comes to office thinking the first thing I must do is ensure no-one investigates Gerry and Kate. 
 
I don't think any MP or former MP has linked themselves to Team McCann, that is, no-one has raised questions on their behalf in the House of Commons.  Except of course, during the Leveson era when senior Labour MPs were supporting the McCanns' quest for press censorship.  That apart, it is a sensitive subject.  Any MP questioning the funding of Operation Grange for example, would immediately be shut down by cries of 'shame on you'.  It is probably fair to say most MPs support Gerry and Kate (quietly), without actually knowing why.  Except, maybe, they cannot grasp that clean living, church going, middle class professionals could possibly have anything to do with a heinous crime.  And that's scary.
 
But back to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour's support for the crime of the century.  How do they wriggle out.  Well, pretty much as I explained above, innocent until proven guilty and all that.  But.  Who put pressure on the Portuguese police to 'go easy' on the McCanns (thereby losing most of the evidence)?  Who put pressure on the Portuguese police to remove Goncalo Amaral?  Arguably, the moment the case was derailed? It is understandable that PMs Blair and Brown, wanted to show support for Madeleine's parents, but another thing entirely if they interfered in the original investigation. 

206 comments:

  1. It was the night of the Scottish general election and England locals.

    All the main politicians were up and about.

    John Reid, Home Secretary, was chief guest of the BBC in the TV studio pontificating to the nation.

    Among the BBC interviewers was James Landale, close friend of Rachel Oldfield and first journo to be informed of Madeleines plight.

    Senior officers of Strathclyde Police were supervising election proceedings and it was they that alerted the Leics police to Madeleines plight. But where did they get their information? It wasn't from the Portuguese. Landale didn't have the authority to rope in the British police but Reid did.

    Blair is at the most a bit player, follow the real Scots (.. yes I know Blair is, sort of)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reid might have been a snake in the grass JJ, but he wasn't out there in PDL. Did he have authority over the British Consul in Portugal? Probably, I would say, but you are the expert. Was it Reid, who buried the WikiLeaks emails?

      Gerry called on his 'Scottish' roots for sure JJ, it's a wonder he didn't rope Rod Stewart in, but when all is said and done, none of them were there in PDL on the night.

      I don't buy that the crime was premeditated. It would probably be the most convoluted, impractical, disappearance of a child in all of history. Nobody comes up with a plan that bad if they have a few days to think about it. Ditto, the ridiculous notion that Madeleine died earlier in the week. It is too absurd even to discuss.

      I don't know why you want to blame the 'Scots' JJ, but maybe I am a tad biased because my beloved Dad was from Dundee. And I have to confess it now, my Dad and I would have been at loggerheads over this case. He would have supported Gerry and Kate, of that I am sure. Bless him, he did not have a bad bone in his body, and always thought the best of everyone. We also fell out over the Iraq war, and with a heavy heart, I am so sorry to have been proved right. Methinks he was much too gentle a soul for the 21st century.

      Delete
  2. Follow the Scots?
    Do you mean to where Reid later became chairman of and allegedly previously employed a young and up coming doctor as part of the team?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There would appear to be an injuction mentioning a Scottish football team with Irish roots.
      Ireland's shame,Scotland's burden.

      Delete
  3. Madeleine disappeared on 03/05/2007.
    Blair resigned as Prime Minister on 27/06/2007 - that is 55 days later.

    Your obsession with Blair in the Mccann case is underwhelming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pressure on the Portuguese police began within hours of Madeleine going missing. That's why so much forensic evidence was lost, some might say. Given that a week is a long time in politics, 55 days allows plenty of room to manoeuvre.

      I am not obsessed with Blair by the way, though he is pretty high up on my list of Despicables. Trump, I admit, I am obsessed with. Who could have imagined that a bigger monster than Hitler would rise up in the Land of the Free. He appals me on a daily, and often, hourly, basis. I study the faces of those who work for him, and kiss his arse, looking for signs of 'why, why, why'. The hollow sound of 'I was only following orders' rings in my ears. I am tortured by thoughts of ICE agents breaking down doors and tearing families apart.

      I fear for the USA, and I fear for the rest of us. Already the evil policies of Trump and the Far Right are spreading like a toxic virus through the UK and through Europe.

      I think it would be fair to say I hate Blair. He cosied up so much with the bosses and billionaires, that he forgot what side he was on. Now he poisons the current Labour party, bleating on about his past glories, in the hope that he can scupper the Labour Party's return to its' roots.

      This entire case is worthy of a public inquiry. And I am sure many who follow the Madeleine case would agree. However when you look at the scale of, shall we say liberties, Blair was taking during his last days of office, it would probably come near the bottom of a very long list.

      Delete
    2. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 August 2018 at 00:07

      Pressure on the Portuguese police began within hours of Madeleine going missing. That's why so much forensic evidence was lost, some might say. Given that a week is a long time in politics, 55 days allows plenty of room to manoeuvre."

      What on Earth are you talking about? Are you saying that pressure from the UK Government (Blair + New Labour)meant that forensic evidence was lost in the early hours of 4 May 2007? What evidence was lost - maybe you could produce some evidence of that?

      I am not the slightest bit interested in you opinion of Trump and to quote you "he has no relevance whatsoever to the current discussion."

      And yes - you have made it clear that you hate Blair and New Labour.

      Delete
    3. It could be said that the McCanns were treated with kid gloves. Their clothes were not collected, for example, Kate was interviewed with Gerry sitting behind her. Where were the clothes Madeleine had worn that day? How about the beads in her hair that would have contained her DNA - Gerry had to return to Rothley for a pillowcase.

      By Saturday 5th May, Kate had done the washing. How she could think of laundry at that time, I don't know, but all and any forensics on their clothes and Madeleine's were lost. There was still the smell of cadaver on Kate's check trousers though.

      I don't care that you are not interested in my views on Trump. It's my blog, it's my prerogative.

      Delete
  4. "In my honest opinion....."

    I don't believe you have got an honest opinion in your head - you say what you want whenever it suits your mood. You contradict yourself constantly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So not true 15:27! If I have a flaw, and it's possible, it's my honesty. It is beyond my control, and yes, it has caused many problems throughout my life, especially on the employment front. Telling your boss he is a halfwit, never goes down well.

      What you see as contradiction, I see as evolving. My opinions on this case for example, are now far more informed than they were 11 years ago. I don't understand the mentality of quoting something someone said 5 years ago in order to point a finger and say Liar!

      Does your brain remain static 15:27? Do you have the same perspective of the world that you had 20 years ago? Most people continue to acquire knowledge, some, every day if they are lucky. And that knowledge influences their opinions.

      Those quotes from myself were written at a time when I was becoming vexed with Ziggy for spamming my blog. If he were to do it again, I would probably respond in the same way.

      If you want to be pedantic, refusing to publish is not the same as banning, that is I do not have a 'banned list' or IP numbers that cannot access my blog. I don't fear trolls, ergo, they have never been a problem for me.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @00:29

      Good morning, good morning, good morning!

      "...I was becoming vexed with Ziggy for spamming my blog.”

      "...spamming [unsolicited messaging]..."? Malapropism? Or…?

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
    3. @ Ros Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 August 2018 at 00:29

      "I don't understand the mentality of quoting something someone said 5 years ago in order to point a finger and say Liar!"

      I have not made any quotes from 5 years ago - just quotes from exactly 1 year ago.

      Refusing to publish is exactly the same as banning. Posts from ziggy no longer appeared. Most people on here agreed with you at the time.

      Delete
    4. Top of the early evening to you T, I hope you are well :)

      After much consideration I chose the word spamming quite deliberately. The extremely verbose Ziggy was drowning out everyone, even me. It is very rare for me to exert my authority, I'm laughing even as I write this, because the idea is so ridiculous. But this is Cristobell's (my alter ego) blog, not Ziggy's, and he was trying to take over.

      When it comes to my work, I become very territorial, and a tad precious. I write using the principles of honesty and integrity. I feel no shame for anything I have written, because at the time of writing, I ask myself, 'will this shame me in years to come?'.

      I am proud of my blog. It's been quite a journey for a lot of us, and we have shared many interesting discussions. Ziggy, unfortunately, could never rise above that 'hater' mentality, the fact that he considered anyone who didn't believe the McCanns, to be either filled with hate and envy or mentally deficient in some way. And like the McCanns he believed he could talk his way out of anything - he couldn't.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 August 2018 at 00:29

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 August 2018 at 21:52

      Basically, if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em. Thus destroying your own dwindling credibility as well as your bizarre theorizing.

      Your 'honesty and integrity' doesn't detract from the fact(yes a real 'fact') you see things through a really narrow lense and refuse to accept that anything you say can only ever be an opinion or a guess.You can't criticize anything that differs from your view if they too are only guesses.Unfortunately you're consumed with a really unhealthy dislike of two parents who lost their little girl. As such you won't see or acknowledge outside of your bubble. Your superficial charm has long since faded and the thin veneer has exposed your mentality and nature.Ziggy or no Ziggy, that will remain gnawing at you.His writing and how he presents his points are the best thing about your blog.He's obviously smart, despite your opinion otherwise and lack of support for your assertion that he isn't, and he has a good sense of humour too.As someone recently pointed out to you, his return has breathed life into your blog.Why do you think that is ?If you had a mental maturity about you, you could use what he says for good debating.He's never ducked questions and he's always asked them.You can't say the same.You should be grateful he posts here.

      Delete
    6. ''Ziggy, unfortunately, could never rise above that 'hater' mentality, the fact that he considered anyone who didn't believe the McCanns, to be either filled with hate and envy or mentally deficient in some way. And like the McCanns he believed he could talk his way out of anything - he couldn't.''


      So, he believed that people who have decided, without a shred of evidence to support them, that the McCanns were killers,body - concealers, money launderers, liars because body language says it's so were actually in need of checking their mentality.But that-according to you- makes HIM the one suffereing a 'hater mentality'.He's right.You hate that.As usual you obsess over trying to colour opinion against him as he is exposing you and what you represent.Why not debate his points and not call him names.It isn't just childish, it illustrates how unpleasant you are and God knows we'd love a break from that.Stop telling us all how uneducated he is and superior you are and actually show us.From where I'm sitting, he looks far more of an educator, far more naturally gifted in his way of expressing himself and a good laugh when it needs lightening up here. Ziggy never needed to talk his way out of anything.You did, and still do.

      Delete
    7. @ 01:06 and 01:17
      You need to disguise your writing style more Ziggy even though you are probably using a VPN to change your ip address each time.

      Delete
    8. I was thinking the same 10:46.

      Both the above posters think my entire blog is based on my dislike for two parents who lost a child, only this and nothing more.

      Both claim there is not a shred of evidence that the parents were involved. Err, there is quite a lot evidence actually, beginning with Gerry looking exactly like the man seen by the Smith family carrying a young child who looked exactly like Madeleine and the fact that the original investigation made them Arguidos.

      Actually those believing in an abductor are more likely to be mentally deficient, because there really isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. Nothing, zilch, in 11+ years and no sign of Madeleine either. From a rational, sane perspective, there was no abductor.

      But don't let me rain on your parade Ziggy fans, bring forth some of these amazing points he made, let's discuss them.

      Delete
    9. @ Ros 16:17

      "Both the above posters think my entire blog is based on my dislike for two parents who lost a child, only this and nothing more."

      So what else is your blog about - how many other subjects do you muse and post on? The evidence is clear to see to anyone. I doean't matter if you say you are "weaning yourself off the Mcanns" your blogs are ONLY about the Mccann case.

      Delete
    10. Supply and demand 16:49. People come here to read about and discuss the Madeleine case. Probably because it is the only place on the web where this case is discussed honestly and rationally.

      Writers often have to write about subjects that would not be their first choice, but if they want an audience they write what their readers want to read. In retrospect, I would prefer not to have become entwined in this case, but my reputation was attacked so I had no choice.

      What bugs you, is that I don't have any of the maladjusted traits that you attribute to me. I don't believe Gerry and Kate because they failed to convince me that they are telling the truth. Nothing whatsoever to do with personalities (I don't know them), or their projected image of wealth and success. To envy them, I would need to be desirous of everything they have, and I'm not. Their life choices weren't mine, I have never aspired to have what they have.

      My need to be free goes right back to early childhood running through the fields and hills in rural Ireland. Reaching the top of that hill and declaring myself Queen of all I surveyed was a turning point, lol. I pushed the boys off so I could have it all to myself, I didn't want no King!

      Whilst tis true I sometimes shed a tear when listening to the heart tugging lyrics of 'What kind of fool am I?'. Then I remember what kind of eejit I was when I did fall in love, and breathe a sigh of relief that the 'madness' has gone.

      I can of course see that you would much prefer I didn't discuss the Madeleine case 16:49. Mine is the only site that has risen above the quagmire of anonymous hatespeak, integrity intact. It is not riddled with malevolent individuals motivated by their own deep, dark fears, that even they are not aware of. Jeez, imagine getting Verdi, or Tigerloaf on a psychiatrist's couch, lol. They too must live in constant fear that their real identities might be revealed. There is your duality there Bjorn, the number of psychos using anonymity to discuss the case of missing Madeleine. Are they disguised as 'normal' people, as Brenda was? Are they teachers, doctors, retirees? All sweetness and light in the real world, but unleashing their darker sides online? Is that what you doing 16:49? Would you speak to me so discourteously if we were face to face?

      Delete
    11. Dear Anon 14 August 2018 at 16:49
      "I doean't matter if you say you are "weaning yourself off the Mcanns" your blogs are ONLY about the Mccann case"

      The blog isn't, but if it still were, what's the problem? We've an unsolved missing child case, the case of the century so far, and no evidence of an abduction, so why shouldn't that be discussed by Rosalinda and by ´as many as possible for as long time as it takes, till it becomes solved?

      If you think that the McCanns feel bad about what Rosalinda writes about them and think that they would be relieved and greatful if fewer people took interest in their missing child, then the McCanns cannot be especially interested in finding out what happened to her, can they?

      If they are truly innocent,as some believe, they could easily comment on what sceptics say here and sort things out and we could all ask them questions.How come we can't? I've a lot of questions about details in the PJ-investigation and some general questions as well to ask them, all of which could have been properly answered long time ago, if the McCanns hadn't decided to stay away from social media.

      Sceptics in particualr are more obsessed than others with finding out the truth and I'm definitely one of them.

      Delete
    12. "Björn16 August 2018 at 13:23
      Dear Anon 14 August 2018 at 16:49
      "I doean't matter if you say you are "weaning yourself off the Mcanns" your blogs are ONLY about the Mccann case"

      The blog isn't,"
      -----------------------------------

      Didn't you notice the title of this blog?

      Just to remind you "MCCANNS - THE CASE AGAINST THE POLITICIANS"

      Notice the key word there - "Mccanns"?

      Did you even read Ros's blog and notice how many mentions there are to the Mccann case?

      So why do you say that "The blog isn't" about the Mccann case?

      Delete
    13. 21;44
      Because it's Juke Box Jury now.

      Delete
    14. Hi Anon16 August 2018 at 21:44

      Of course I meant that Rosalinda's blogs/posts are,'t always about the Madeleine case. I didn't specifically refer to this, her latest post.

      Delete
    15. Hello Rosalinda14 August 2018 at 16:17

      The two anonymous spots from Anon14 August 2018 at 01:06 and Anon14 August 2018 at 01:17 are not only written by the same person, but as Anon 14 August 2018 at 10:46 suspects, as I do as well, their authour is probably the one we know as Ziggy. If this would be the case, we're dealing with a little devil in disguise.

      Delete
    16. @ Bjorn
      He is Less than Pure.

      Delete
    17. Yes, I am sure you right Bjorn, though laughable that he is now to shy to reveal himself.

      Ziggy is nothing, if not tenacious. All he has to defend the McCanns, is the accusation that non believers hate the McCanns personally. He takes it as a given that all the evidence collected 11+ years ago has been ruled out. That is the dogs, the forensics, the reasons behind making the parents arguidos.

      The subterfuge is pathetic. What is he afraid of? It's funny, but also a bit sad. Which of course, raises the question, would he really speak to me in real life the way that he does under anonymity on here? I suspect not, because his rudeness would be classified as antisocial behaviour.

      It's amazing how 'brave' people become when they are writing under cover of anonymity. Some use it for good, it releases their creativity, but some, as we have seen, use it to be spiteful and vindictive to strangers online.

      I often wonder if some of these people would call me a hater, to my face? I tend to think not, not even the macho Ziggy, because the reality is, they are cowards. But worse, they do not have enough belief in their cause, to put their names behind it.

      We all remember the very pro active family of the summer of 2007, they even had their own rolling news channel on Sky, with members of Team McCann giving regular updates on all developments. Aunties, Uncles, cousins, bridesmaids, all dedicated to keeping Madeleine on the front page.

      How many media monitors did they have? Volunteers as well as lawyers from Carter Ruck? They probably began with hundreds, but are now down to the diehards, less than a handful I would say. And those still fighting the fight on social media, I would guess are inner circle, probably family. There are no anonymous groups of concerned citizens, concerned citizens don't choose to stay anonymous.

      Delete
    18. 18.33
      Do keep up Bjorn,that's yesterday's news.We are eating chips out of the paper now.

      Delete
    19. @ Ros
      Is Ziggy family then or rather from the same clan?
      Ziggy McSawdust?:)

      Delete
    20. @ 20:50
      Pommes frites actually and I doubt they eat them out of old newspaper either,too cultured for that.:)

      Delete
    21. 17 August 23,15

      Follow the Scots

      Delete
    22. @ 10:19
      And the funny handshakes?
      I thought Ziggy was a member of the Kop.Or can you be in both?:)

      Delete
    23. Aaah piping hot chips, soaked in vinegar and eaten out of soggy newspapers, yum! The experience is particularly enhanced if sitting in a rain shelter and looking out to sea, bliss.

      Apart from that, I am so not a fan of having my food dished up in polystyrene or even hygienic paper of any sort. Ditto pieces of slate, roof tiles or blocks of wood. I want a plate! Preferably fine china, but if not, at least designed to stop gravy, etc, spilling into my lap. Grrr.

      Delete
    24. 17 August 11,34
      "The Kop"
      I think you might mean the Stand a wee bit higher up country where the occupants practise a certain kind of kiss after they have been on the Buckfast and Mad Dog.

      Delete
    25. @ 13:37
      Lol. Ziggy is not Scottish.My comment about McSawdust was a joke.
      I do remember though years ago,Ziggy mentioned he was from Liverpool and a football fan,which is why I said the Kop.Now it could have been to mislead,but I doubt it.Scottish he ain't!
      As for Buckfast,I have heard of that and even been to visit the Abbey and seen it made,but Mad Dog?I had to look it up.
      Have you been on it yourself by any chance?

      Delete
    26. 18 August 18,47
      Geez man I didnt mean Soredust.He's a fool,a nobody and contradicts himself almost every other sentence .I was just using him and your post to try and get you people to take your blinkers off and start looking in the right direction.Scotland is key to this case,believe me.
      I have been researching connections between a certain Scottish football club,freemasonary and a former home secretary now for nearly 2 years.And I'm close,real close to cracking this thing wide open.But I cant do it on my own.I will be dismissed as a crank or even worse,will have an accident.I am already being watched I know it.If lots of people are looking the right way and asking the right questions however,we maybe be able to do it.
      To use Ziggyspeak,together we can beat them and be heroes.They wont be able to stop us all.
      I cant say too much more for now,or reveal myself,or my research,its too dangerous,but please people start looking up north,its the holy grail and as I said before,follow the Scots.

      Delete
    27. Hi Rosalinda 18 August 2018 at 11:54
      "Aaah piping hot chips, soaked in vinegar and eaten out of soggy newspapers, yum! The experience is particularly enhanced if sitting in a rain shelter and looking out to sea, bliss"

      I'm glad to hear that Rosalinda. I used to eat fish and chips like that in England, unfortunately so long time ago. If I ever would go back, I would insist upon having the whole meal wrapped in any of the bad quality English papers. The Sun would be just fine.

      Hi anon Anon 17 August 2018 at 20:50
      "Do keep up Bjorn,that's yesterday's news.We are eating chips out of the paper now"

      Interesting metaphore for "out of date". However it would've been even better if there weren't any people in England who still do prefer to eat chips in the old fashioned way.Apparenrly there are.

      Delete
  5. "According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal."

    http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-21-dismissal-of-head-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's up next, Rosalinda- ' Kim Jong Un and the McCanns' ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That remark makes you look stupid, not me. If you have been following the discussion you will see that a number of posters believe the case remains unsolved 'for political reasons'. Many think there are politicians dictating how the investigation should be conducted, and the conclusions they must reach.

      Whilst other McCann commentators focus on the more salacious aspects of this case, I tend to look at the bigger picture. The politics behind this case are integral to our understanding of it. Why did the McCanns get so much help? Because those doing the helping could see the mileage in it. If all had gone to plan we would now have a government financed missing children TV network, headed up by all the leading lights who assisted Kate and Gerry.

      Kim Jong Un has no relevance whatsoever to the current discussion.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Hello Anon 13 August 2018 at 18:13

      Your post and your intelligent approach to the case is exactly what makes the McCanns happy. If we had just a little more of people's "zzzzzz", that would help the McCanns a lot in dealing with their daily lives and they will eventually suppress everything that happened to their child. No more appeals to the general public by Gerry and Kate and more zzzzzz's from those who used to take great in the Madeleine case are certainly what the McCanns most of all wish for.

      Delete
  8. Meanwhile a member of the foremost research forum on the Mccann case in the Universe has written to the Pope:

    "> To: info@vatican.ca
    > Subject: Maddie McCann and priests

    > > Dear Pope Francis

    > > Can I ask why Maddie McCann was removed from the Vatican website and why the priest that tried to help them was vilified by press and apparently said he was deceived?

    In a Christian spirit and to clear up conspiracy theories.. rumours and for the sake of the poor priest can you please clarify what happened?

    Kind Regards"

    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15388-goncalo-amaral-the-priests-also-know-very-well-what-happened-that-night#389488

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a Christian spirit, lol, devil worshippers more like.

      Delete
  9. Reverend T. Ben. Nit13 August 2018 at 21:19

    Good god!
    Tonight grave news has been brought to my attention and just when I thought everything was Hunky Dory too.
    Bruvver Zesus has been accused of singing his own thanks and praises.
    Good God!
    How could this be? There will be no Dancing in the Street now.
    It would make him a Heathen, a false prophet. Surely not I hear you cry and indeed a Low point. Even possible black magic, sorcery,witchcraft and Scary Monsters and we all know what happens to them!
    I must confer urgently with my bishop, one of the London Boys, for spiritual guidance.
    I shall be a Lodger overnight and share his bed at his glorious abode and shall return in the morning.
    In the meantime, and just for Bjorn, as he's from Luton, I shall be Hunting High and Low for the truth and if these grave charges are indeed proven then it could truly be Scoundrel Days.

    Amen to that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 21:19
      False prophet= someone whose role it is to lead people away from the truth. Hmmm, seems about right.

      Delete
    2. 'Luton'

      Airport?

      Delete
    3. anon @ 13:16
      Campari and Lemonade advert,thats going back some years.

      Delete
    4. Hey Rev
      Scoundrel Days is a great album,but a-ha are from Norway.You should have ended it with...then Ziggy will surely meet his Waterloo!

      Delete
    5. @ anon 15th August 15:10
      He already has.Ros runs rings round him daily.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 15 August 2018 at 17:54

      And in English please?

      T

      Delete
    7. August 15 10.30
      It is also a song too by Cats UK (1979) taking the mickey out of the advert and as the original post contained many album/song titles,I read the reply to mean that.

      Delete
    8. Holiday destinations

      "A pensioner has hit out at Thomas Cook because her hotel in Spanish resort Benidorm had ‘too many Spaniards in it’.

      ‘The entertainment in the hotel was all focused and catered for the Spanish – why can’t the Spanish go somewhere else for their holidays?’"

      https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/13/holiday-spain-ruined-many-spaniards-spanish-hotel-7832699/

      LOL

      Delete
  10. "Actually those believing in an abductor are more likely to be mentally deficient,"

    Says Ros who has a mental disability that she has referred to numerous times on this blog and has a liking for falling down water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My mental health issues do not affect my ability to understand complex subjects 18:01. If anything my eyes are wide open, the doors of perception never close.

      As for a liking for falling down water. I jest, often, I drink alcohol rarely. I drink tea, mostly green.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 18:11

      Good - you should have no problems getting work then. I look forward to hearing about experiences in your current job just the same as you have told everything about your jobs in the past.

      Delete
    3. Good heavens 18:37, your interest in my capability for work, goes above and beyond.

      So too, your lack of understanding of mental health issues - you seem to think they are confined to those with learning disabilities. You cannot comprehend the mental torment suffered by those with above average IQs. Yet history is littered with the deaths of geniuses who could no longer take the mental torment of the world they lived in. Richard Pryor, Robin Williams, Amy Winehouse, Frederik Neitzche (sp), I could go on and on. Most recently Anthony Bourdain, a guy who I would have said, had everything. I was besotted with him, maybe because I could see behind his eyes, that he 'suffered for his sanity'.

      My job right now is to write as much as I can whilst I still retain my marbles. Sadly, I think a few roll away of their own accord, whilst I am sleeping. I continue to battle my inability to focus and the demons that torment me.

      Being aware, and having my eyes opened, should make me recoil in horror, but it hasn't, it drives me to know more. And believe me, the temptation to cover my face my pillow, is never far away.

      I speak about my mental health issues, because I feel that many of my readers can empathise with them. I hope, that they feel less alone, just by seeing how brutally honest I am. I am not afraid to talk about how I feel, because I always sense that 'someone in the room' will connect with me. Who could have foreseen the untimely death of Anthony Bourdain, but his mental health issues killed him just as surely as if he had cancer.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous at 16:49

    As you undoubtedly know, "dislike for two parents who lost a child" and "the McCann case" are two totally different things.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon 10.46
    'VPN'
    Very Pissed Nutter?
    Does that apply to anyone else here,or do they just take Tea too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 14th August 21:06
      I assume the capital letter is a hint or clue;)

      Delete
  13. Hi Rosalinda,
    You are dead right in your opening paragraph's observation; that the first few hours of the public's knowledge of an "abduction" could just as well have been called a "Kidnapping". - Except according to various dictionaries, Kidnapping usually means a demand for a ransom which the parents were never subjected to.
    (actually I seem to remember there were a couple of fake ones duly prosecuted)

    But who knows what may still develop. The worthy couple are still searching for their living daughter and maybe a ransom note will give them some hope.

    The McCanns should easily be able to pay any ransom demand with the money they have stashed away in the "Find Madeleine Fund".

    And the wonderful outcome would be to exonerate this pious couple from being so hatefully accused of 11 years of deceit.

    Not least would be the thrill of being re-united with their daughter here on earth, - instead of the inevitable day of reckoning when the family meets face to face in heaven.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  14. JC @ 7:28,pray tell what this searching involves from the "worthy" couple when there are supposed to be two police investigations running side by side costing in excess of £11 million on the brit side without a single trace of evidence to say whether she is either dead or alive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Actually those believing in an abductor are more likely to be mentally deficient, because there really isn't a shred of evidence to support his existence. Nothing, zilch, in 11+ years and no sign of Madeleine either. From a rational, sane perspective, there was no abductor."

    Well if the Met aren't looking for an abductor what the heck are they looking for?

    ReplyDelete
  16. RE: @ 10;27 The searching:

    The answer to your question:
    The British investigation is an eleven million pound smokescreen, created to deflect attention from a very guilty government that backed the wrong horse(s).

    By comparison, Portuguese investigators have not spent one cent more on their investigation than they needed to back in 2007 because they knew all the answers - but were prevented from prosecution by none other than an intervention by the beloved champions of the British people, - the British Government.
    How the British could have duped the Portuguese is still an ongoing mystery.
    But you get what you vote for.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @17:25

      Sorry misread you.Not sure on the duping though, evidence is what is missing, a confession is what will end it.

      Delete
    2. @17:25

      "The British investigation is an eleven million pound smokescreen, created to deflect attention from a very guilty government that backed the wrong horse(s).
      How the British could have duped the Portuguese is still an ongoing mystery."

      Or maybe this is nonsense and, rather more plausibly, a child was abducted.

      Delete
    3. And there really are fairies in Cottingley.

      Delete
  17. @ 18:32
    Shall we administer sodium thiopental?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shouldn't sodium pentathal be enough.
    Remember, the KGB were big on this stuff before Harry Potter got into the act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16 August 1.47
      They are the same,but whatever,I think some pretty damn strong stuff will be required to break down the McCanns defences.
      They may even have been trained or coached. Who knows?

      Delete
    2. @ 16th August 09:23

      "Did anyone approach you?"
      "Did anybody coach you?"
      "Did anybody tell you what to say now?".....

      Delete
    3. anon 11.12
      I've got this feeling something happened here.


      Great song, great band and very apt I think in this case.
      Better than the Swedish one too.
      Sorry Bjorn lol

      Delete
    4. Aha, ha, ha etc.

      ------

      RIP, Aretha. Always loved.

      T

      Delete
    5. I don't think the McCanns were coached or trained in any way - lying comes so easily to them, it is as if they have been doing it all their lives.

      Of course, it could be argued they were coached straight away by Warners crisis management and 'Pike' the child psychologist who turned up in Lisbon to give evidence for them. Whatever they were told, they took to, like ducks to water, and we saw the biggest missing child case in history launched as it if were a global election campaign, Gerry and Kate coming to a town near you soon. What were they promoting on their European Tour, and Gerry's visit to the White House lawn? The missing child? Missing children the world over?

      Of course, Clarence Mitchell was never far from their sides when they did their media tours. His was the voice of authority, his job to control the media as if they were a crowd of unruly sheep. He fielded the questions, and guided the narrative, told interviewers what they were and weren't allowed to ask. The missing Madeleine story was the hottest on the planet and he wasn't going to let any of it slip away.

      To be fair, he didn't have much work to do in boosting Gerry and Kate's egos. Already the pair were scolding the press and putting journalists in their place. I would to know what the real feeling was like in the press rooms, after every pre-scripted appearance of Gerry, Kate and Clarence. I imagine sympathy and empathy were replaced with suspicion and anger. The press know better than anyone, that what goes around, comes around.

      Delete
    6. 12;44
      "Better than the Swedish one too"
      Abba?
      Horses for courses and I like both.
      In fact,it is a bit like comparing Oranges (and) On Apple(s)trees.

      Delete
    7. Hi Rosalinda
      "I don't think the McCanns were coached or trained in any way - lying comes so easily to them, it is as if they have been doing it all their lives"
      You're probably right. Yet, they attended courses in "how to perform in front of cameras and journalists. Gerry revealed that in the Skavlan talkshow in Sweden some years ago.

      Delete
    8. Hi Bjorn, in writing that I was recalling an article written by Pat Brown, many years ago. In that article she explained that people's characters/personalities are not changed by a traumatic event. That is, whatever you were before the event, you are still the same after the event. Which of course, makes a lot of sense.

      People don't suddenly become liars, and they don't become accomplished liars within hours. If it is their nature to lie, then it has been all their lives. Trump is probably a good example, his lying and cheating goes back decades.

      Gerry and Kate perform for the cameras, they never reveal their true feelings, that's if they have any. For most parents, mothers especially, an aged progressed picture of their missing child would reduce them to a weeping mess, yet Kate sits with such a picture behind her, and talks as if she were an automaton. Can you really be taught to withhold that amount of emotion?

      I would question Gerry's revelation that they attended courses in 'how to perform in front of cameras and journalists'. Do such courses exist? Is there that much demand? Did their fellow students agree to keep the secret?

      I think it more likely that Gerry was fishing for someone to blame should their TV performances be criticized for being too polished and unemotional. It's a bit like their claim that they were told not to cry etc, as it would give pleasure to the abductor.

      I think Gerry and Kate are naturals, it would be a bit too devious to imagine they planned their TV personas on their own. It makes them some manipulative and deceptive. Not so much if they say someone told them to act that way.

      Delete
    9. continuing...

      Should this case ever come to a conclusion, I suspect Gerry and Kate will claim to be victims of higher powers. Beginning with Clarence Mitchell, if Ziggy's old posts are anything to go by.

      I have a feeling Clarence will get much of the blame, from, well, everyone, especially all the journalists he lorded over when the McCanns were front page news. I suspect he and the parents have made many enemies in the media world, what with the lawsuits, Leverson and their sheer arrogance. It's hard not to imagine there not being a 'field day' when or if, the press become unbound.

      Delete
    10. Yes indeed T, RIP Aretha. I spent a little while yesterday watching live performances of Aretha on YouTube. From the upbeat R.E.S.P.E.C.T. to her amazing performance in front of Barack Obama in the White House and I shed a tear. It was as if a giant bridge in time had been crossed, Aretha Franklin, the iconic heroine of the 1960's Civil Rights movement and Barack Obama, the first black President of the USA. It was a precious moment in history.

      I don't think she will ever be forgotten T. My advice to any woman or indeed man, feeling downtrodden today, to have a blast of R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and dance like no-one's watching!

      Delete
  19. Probably the truth drug would work but Britain and its police forces would have to be in a state of war to implement the drug's use.
    A remote prospect for the McCanns, but not entirely off the horizon, - fantasies aside.

    I keep thinking of George Orwell the champion of truth versus lies, so well covered in his books and his career as a government employee working on propaganda dissemination for the BBC in WW11.
    He could see both sides of propaganda very clearly.

    I'll throw in a couple of quotes from the 1984 book that could easily be ascribed to the spokesperson for the McCanns - Mr Clarence Mitchell.

    "We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them."

    And for the McCanns - "If you want to keep a secret, you must hide it from yourself."

    Well, they have pretty well done that.
    Doublespeak lives on.
    jc


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Orwell is to be commended for foreseeing doublespeak decades before it really took hold. And while we may not have actual ministries churning out misinformation, we have the BBC. I once had the pleasure of teaching '1984' to an A-level class, you can imagine how lively the debates were.

      Kate gives a perfect example of doublespeak with her 'account' of the truth, Madeleine? Wtf does that mean, is she leaving a door open in case there are any changes?

      To be fair however, I don't actually see Gerry and Kate as readers of dystopian nightmares, actually I don't see them as lovers of literature at all, they are more sports and science.

      Delete
  20. Ros are you proud of this blog that you host, that you approve and post the comments on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am proud of my blog. I am overawed that readers return again and again, and that they enjoy my writing. And yes, I am narcissistic enough to believe that my unique writing style has an audience. Many people are interested in the Madeleine case, and for reading material, they have many options. I am glad they choose to come here and I am glad to host a forum where all opinions are welcome. My blog, even though largely dormant these days, still has a regular audience. And contrary to what my critics might think, only I have the power to switch the heat up.

      As for the comments. I have battled through the quagmire of forums and facebook pages under the philosophy that I am only responsible for what I say and do. I wouldn't dream of taking responsibility for the words and actions of others, they are beyond my control.

      That I post the comments doesn't imply that I approve of them. I've posted your comment, even though I can see what you are trying to do. If there was anything offensive or any incitements to hate, you might have a valid argument. But, as you know, there are none. Unfortunately for you, this blog doesn't claim to have solved the case, not does it make salacious accusations against anyone. There is no legal or civil ground with which to shut me down.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 August 2018 at 12:33

      You are responsible for every single word that you allow to be posted on here. You are the publisher.

      Delete
    3. The enforcer is back.
      Is someone close to the truth then?
      Ziggy was obviously not good enough,so his superior has to step into the ring.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 19 August 2018 at 11:30

      ?

      Wake up… Wake up!

      T

      Delete
    5. Hello dear Unknown19 August 2018 at 02:00
      "You are responsible for every single word that you allow to be posted on here. You are the publisher"

      Possibly true, just as the McCanns are entirely responsible for all their actions that led to the abduction of Madeleine or to her death in their holiday apartment.

      Have a Nice Day

      Delete
  21. Hi Rosalinda and others
    This may have been discussed earlier here,but still worth talking about-

    The Sun
    By Tracey Kandohla
    27th April 2018, 1:59 pm
    Updated: 27th April 2018, 3:32 pm
    (Blacksmith B. refers to the article in one of his spots)
    ”Heart doctor Gerry, 49, and former GP Kate, 50, have also turned down interview offers from a number of magazines and TV stations in France and Germany rather than jeopardise the investigation.
    The pal added: "They’re always bombarded with requests for interviews in the run up to the anniversary.
    “They are not trying to be awkward or evasive with the press, but if police don’t want them to discuss publicly their life without Madeleine they will not do so”
    My comment;
    Does Tracey Kandohla really believe what the McCanns, or whomever represents them, tell her, or is she just supporting the McCanns knowing that it’s just an excuse to stay away from journalists who might ask awkward questions?
    In what way would the McCanns’ participation in talk shows around the world, if that would still be possible, jeopardise the ongoing investigation? Some years ago Gerry said something along the lines, that they would do their best (keep a high profile) to keep Madeleine and the whole ”abduction” case in the public eye.
    The truth is, that they have nothing but the same old “abduction” story and their own suffering to waffle about, while we (the general public) have loads of question to ask them, and that’s the reason why they now shun all kinds of talk shows and only talk to media through (a) representative(s) and to a “trustworthy” paper, who has a “reliable” journalist. What else could it be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they dare face an interviewer Bjorn, not even a friendly one, because they dare not deviate from their 11 year old script. Then of course an interviewer is bound to ask how the investigation is going, something they cannot answer if the police aren't keeping them updated.

      If they are innocent and not being kept updated, then what the police are doing is horribly cruel. Actually it's horribly cruel even if they are not. It might be frustrating to us to hear that OG is getting more funding each time, but it must be a nightmare for parents who are desperate to know what happened to their child.

      Any interview would be full of questions they can't answer. They can't for example, ask the public to search for a live Madeleine if the police believe she is dead. They did exactly that throughout the Portuguese investigation, but this time round, it isn't possible. They requested this investigation and they must be seen to be abiding by their rules. After all this is a 'superior' British police force, rather than a third world foreign police force who were easy game. We haven't for example, seen pictures of British police coming out of eateries or wearing ear rings.

      Tracey Kandhola, lives two thirds of the way up Gerry McCann's rectum and it is reflected in her writing. She doesn't so much report on the McCann case, as write psalms in their honour. Whatever she says, believe the opposite, she has no credibility whatsoever.

      The pair stayed in the public eye out of sheer vanity, they foolishly believed they could talk their way out of all the suspicion that hung over them, unaware that every time they spoke, they were digging themselves a deeper hole.

      They know that now, which is probably another reason they have gone quiet.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      "I don't think they dare face an interviewer Bjorn, not even a friendly one, because they dare not deviate from their 11 year old script"
      So true

      After more than eleven years, Kate hasn't even dared to refer to Madeleine's "crying story" by talking about it in her ownher own words. I believe she would still quote what she claims Madeleine had said, which either is "Why didn't you come last night when I and Sean were crying, or "when I was crying". I haven't yet heard something like "In the morning Madeleine told us that she and Sean had been crying the previous night and she asked us why we didn't come"

      I agree with you in that they must fear to reveal something between the lines, some new Freudian slips or something that they haven't said before, so they're more or less compelled to stick to their script both literally and figuratively in detail as well as in a broader perspective.

      Delete
  22. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton17 August 2018 at 13:30

    I don't think the McCanns were coached or trained in any way - lying comes so easily to them, it is as if they have been doing it all their lives."
    --------------------------------------
    Have you ever lied Ros?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Justine McGuinness told Gerry McCann: "Stick to the official line."

    0:45

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=vx4fOjXPKH0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What ever happened,I'm sure the McCann's know more than they say they do.
      If there is/was a cover up by British Intelligence on Government orders,then it would be impossible in my view to keep that knowledge from the McCann's and they would have to be part of it.They would also receive coaching on how to keep the cover up going.That stands to reason.
      Even if you think they had no part in what initially occurred(and I tend to accept that possibility)they must at least know something if not the whole picture.The need to know basis and all that etc.
      I mentioned previously about the Official Secrets Act and I firmly believe the McCann's are under orders and I also strongly think the files for this case will not be opened for a very long time.
      Depressing for us I know,but there you go.
      How long can this blog continue for?


      Delete
    2. To continue what I was saying.
      Our grandchildren will be discussing this case and probably their offspring too.
      Many books and tv documentaries will claim to have solved the mystery over the coming years,just like Jack the Ripper.
      But nobody will know for sure until maybe January 1st 2107.

      Delete
    3. We need to keep hope alive and strive to do better. - Kofi Annan

      Delete
  24. Kate McCann (madeleine):

    “As more TV and press turned up in Luz, Alex Woolfall gave us helpful pointers on handling the media. We came to rely on Alex as our de facto media liaison officer. It was he who guided us early on, giving us simple advice that has stood us in good stead since. He told us to ask ourselves the following two questions before giving anything to anyone in the press: what was our objective, and how was it going to help? We’ve always tried to remember those basic principles in all our interactions with the media. Alex explained the rather Pavlovian responses of the media pack. If we began to give daily statements, for example, they would expect one at the same time every day. Sometimes, he said, all they needed was to be fed something to keep them happy, and if that was the case, this might be our only objective in speaking to them.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerry and Kate give a lot of credit to Alex Woolfall and no credit whatsoever to the police and searchers. Not only weren't they out there searching, they showed no gratitude to those who were.

      Like most, I suspect, I have suffered intense grief, no-one in the world could have stopped my tears when I lost my Dad. I couldn't face anyone, let alone TV cameras.

      It's hard to imagine how Gerry and Kate must have felt, the only way we can do it, is to place ourselves in their situation. I will admit I am the world's greatest wuss, but where my kids were concerned, I was a ferocious mummy tiger. Mums, and dads, can perform amazing feats when their offspring are in danger. I remember once leaving my baby son on the bed whilst I climbed to the top of a ladder to stuff something into a cupboard. As I glanced down I saw him begin to roll, and somehow managed to get down the ladder and catch him before he hit the floor. I've no idea how I did it and felt a bit like Wonder Woman afterwards. We all have stories, we can look back in amazement at how we steered our toddlers safely through every danger.

      In Gerry and Kate's situation, nothing would have stopped us from being outside searching. Nothing would have stopped us from being honest and sincere in our pleas for the return the child. We wouldn't have been emotionally stable enough to play mind games with the abductor and the media.

      I don't know if it was intentional 10:40, but this excerpt from 'Madeleine' illustrates the arrogant stance the McCanns had taken towards the press from the start. 'Media pack' and 'All they needed was to be fed something to keep them happy'. Already Kate is making enemies.

      Why distraught parents would immediately become involved in spin, beggars belief. For perspective, imagine Alex Woolfall offering to coach the parents of the Soham victims, or Sara Payne? It is unthinkable.

      Kudos to Team McCann, for a while there, they created a 'new normal', the bizarre behaviour of the parents was seen as heroic. Many of thought we were living in a twilight zone. But, it didn't last, and time hasn't done it any favours. It's like the strange phenomenon that hit the UK when Princess Diana died. We look back and wonder, what on earth were thinking?

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon August 2018 at 10:40
      "Sometimes, he said, all they needed was to be fed something to keep them happy, and if that was the case, this might be our only objective in speaking to them.”

      Kate's book "Madeleine" is just like Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Confession part 1". When will we enjoy reading part 2 of her confessions.

      So Kate's main objective was to keep MSM happy by telling them "something", instead of real facts in the case, that might have made more people look for Madeleine in the "right place". Isn't this how Kate and Gerry still today approach traditional media, when they make up stories to please whoever believes that they may have something of interest to say.

      Delete
    3. Björn (22 August at 21:13)

      Perhaps, with the wisdom of hindsight, Kate tried to excuse some of their incomprehensible statements as the parents of an allegedly abducted daughter. But why did the McCanns blindly follow advice? If they fed the media something to keep them happy, you’d think they would have considered the consequences.

      NL

      Delete
    4. NL 23 August 2018 at 11:16
      Hi NL
      When Kate chose not to answer any questions when she'd become an official suspect, she says that she did so because her lawyer advised her to keep quiet. When she managed not to reveal any emotions or to burst into tears when she appealed to the public, she claims that it was all due to what she was advised to do.

      Nowadays when Kate or Gerry are asked by journalists about Madeleine's whereabouts, whether they've heard anything from the SY or other sources they cannot reveal anything as they claim to know nothing and because there's an ongoing investigation, but in the past (the first year) they obviously could say anything to please the media. Now, when they've finally realised that it's not so easy to mislead MSM, almost just as difficult as to fool people on social media, they've decided to keep quiet, and that's their own decision, just as it was their own decision to try to mislead MSM in the past and to sabotage the Portuguese investigation. I don't think anyone has ever advised them to do anything (not even Clarence Mitchell), but making people believe that they have to take advice from up above is just an excuse for not doing
      what "innocent" parents, who're looking for their abducted child, would always do.

      Delete
  25. Those are two very good points @ 10:10 and 12:55.

    There is a good chance the McCanns are embroiled in an official Secrets order by the government to prevent the involvement of HMG ever being known - at least until AD 2107!
    When maybe the press and normal people who would like to express an opinion without being terrorized will be off the hook from persecution by the likes of Carter Ruck.

    It is astonishing to think of the power the British courts and law firms have thousands of miles from home.
    For example American criminal profiler Pat Brown has for years had a book waiting to go. It's about exactly what happened in the Praia Da Luz mystery but she cannot get it published over threats of being sued for libel by Carter Ruck. (Read: Mr and Mrs McCann).

    On another subject:
    What is pretty apparent on sites like this is the occasional internet troller trying to appear logical but ending up putting a foot in their mouth. Almost certainly high placed law firm employees, - or friends of Team McCann.
    Fortunately, their sycophantic laugh out loud non-arguments stand out like a sore thumb.

    But then free speech is a democratic right - even if you are a liar.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  26. OT (just to clear a misconception for those of your readers also doing Twitter)

    https://twitter.com/Baskingsharky/status/1031162622689914881

    Paternostormer is right, JillyCL (RT’s and likes) and Bale2LiverpoolNil are wrong.

    Kate McCann (madeleine):

    Friday 4 May 2007 (“By midnight we’d had no more word from the police about what, if anything, was happening.”)

    “Finally, I erupted. I began to scream, swear and lash out. I kicked an extra bed that had been brought into the apartment and smashed the end right of it.”

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know this will be laughed at and I will be shouted down,but I am putting this forward just for discussion.I am not taking the piss either as I do have an interest in such things.
    Just as a remote hypothesis,what if there really was an abduction,but it was alien(or rather non human)?
    It would certainly explain the cover up and the McCann's would definitely be under official orders to remain quiet.
    A matter of utmost national security would have been immediately declared and everything done to prevent the general public knowing anything about it.
    There have been many reported cases of alien abduction throughout human history and while I know sceptics explain them in various ways, I myself am not so sure.
    Anyhow,just an idea and food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19 August at 18:57

      I don’t believe in alien abductions, but as you say the McCann case and ‘national security’ gives food for thought. Perhaps there was something going on week(s) before Madeleine went missing and an abduction was more convenient than an accidental(?) death. A matter of focused and shifting attention?

      NL

      Delete
    2. West Riding Pauper Lunatic Asylum inmate no 00720 August 2018 at 10:44

      You need to be wearing a foil hat to read that post.
      I'll check with my cell mate T to see what he thinks of it.

      Delete
    3. Well 18:57, someone was eventually going to suggest an alien abduction, so kudos to you for 'just putting it out there' lol.

      I'd never dismiss the idea of aliens, there are just too many planets out there to believe that we are the only planet that sustains life.

      However, I'm extremely sceptical of those claiming to have been abducted by aliens. I watched a documentary once where a woman claimed aliens visited her frequently, and did strange things like hide her cigarettes (should've hidden the liquor). I had to ask myself, would an advanced civilisation travel thousands of light years just to hide this woman's fags?

      Equally, would a highly intelligent, superior species drop off in PDL for one night only to steal one small girl? And how convenient that this small girl and her siblings were unsupervised when they dropped in.

      What parent, even Gerry and Kate, could agree to keep silent about an alien kidnap of their child? Not only did they keep quiet, but they earned money and promoted a search for their daughter, convincing the public (and police) that their daughter was the victim of a flesh and blood predator. Could they have done this knowing Madeleine had been kidnapped by aliens?

      An alien abduction hidden by the Government and the parents, wouldn't last 5 minutes, there is no love lost between Theresa May and the McCanns. Kate accused May of replying to them with 'fluffy words', rather than a straight answer. I feel if Gerry and Kate had anything on TM or this government it would have come out a long time ago. Their allegiances lie elsewhere, and it's nothing to do with aliens.

      At some point, all loyalties will go out the window and it will be every man/woman for themselves. A bit like the Mueller investigation into Trump. Mueller is picking off those on the periphery and offering deals. At the very beginning of OG Sir Bernard HH said there were 130+ suspects, who knows perhaps ET was among them.

      Delete
    4. "Thousands of light years"

      Some people think they are alot closer than that and they have been here much much longer than us.

      Now I've said that, you really need to put your tin foil hat on,especially when you hear I'm one of them.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 20 August 2018 at 08:44

      Comrade T appreciates your sober comment, comrade NL.

      Mao

      Delete
    6. @10:44

      Dear comrade 007

      I’ve read the comment you refer to. The horizons it opens are of beauty beyond my immediate grasp. I have spoken to Friedrich about it, but his mind is, understandably, elsewhere: he is writing his Meister und Rose: Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft. When he’s finished, I don’t see why our wholesome threesome wouldn’t be capable of assisting humanity with assessing the comrade 18:57’ seemingly most promising idea.

      T

      Delete
    7. Ros maybe Agatha Christie is wanted,HH started with 130+,"then there were none".

      Delete
    8. Given that Operation Grange is still active 7+ years in, I would imagine that 130+ has doubled. Perhaps everyone who had a hand in the alleged cover up will be brought to justice. If there was no abduction, then the search Fund comes under scrutiny. And given the laws of this particular land, fraudulent accounting may well incur a higher sentence than covering up the death and disappearance of a child. All allegedly of course, and a hypothetical situation. But having said that, wtf are Operation Grange investigating?

      No gangs of traffickers have been brought to justice, ditto, no gangs of paedophiles. Not even a solitary opportunist, or a gang of inept burglars have ever been serious contenders. Just as we (I) thought, all these dark fears about child snatchers are nothing other than establishment propaganda.

      We are now infiltrated and surrounded by men (it's always men in this f**ked up ideology)lusting after young children and babes in arms. Most of us know it isn't true, but our need to protect our children overrides our logic, and we accept the fear. What do we know eh? We should listen to the warnings of people like Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas, because they know so much more than we do.

      But do they? MWT sat and interviewed a killer with the body of his victim in the attic above his head? What did he demonstrate? That he was lucky (or opportunist) enough to get an exclusive interview. He blows his own trumpet. It would appear his former colleagues don't think as highly of him as he does.

      I would put MWT in the same category as Richard Hall, that is, he has a pretty niche audience, the unenlightened following something they thinks is profound. They are struggling to find the meaning of life and hitching their beliefs on new Messiahs. Enter Hall, MWT, et al. Even Bennett, bless him, thinks he has picked up a few lost sheep who will believe ever looney 'fact' he tells them.



      But do they?

      Delete
    9. @ Ros
      You should have included Textusa too.
      S/he is descending into more lunacy daily.Writes nothing but who is pretending to be who and who said what to who on twiter and such like.
      Solving the case is secondary and everything is a big exciting game.
      Reading carefully the posts too,one gets the feeling most are done by Textusa.
      Especially the comments praising him/her.
      .

      Delete
    10. I have now had a look at the Textusa blog, but restricted my reading to whatever was being said about me, lol. She (I'm assuming Textusa is a 'she') have never been at loggerheads, well not that I know of.

      I was saddened to see she assumes I dislike her, as I literally have no idea who she is or what she stands for, dislike would be impossible. I find the 'swinging' idea rather quaint, a bit like the bedroom romps that dominated British theatre in the 1960s. And of course the News of the World front pages of politicians caught with their trousers down.

      Of course obsessive sexual desire can lead to all sorts of sticky ends, from salacious headlines like 'have you had hanky panky with a Cranky?' to the broad daylight murder of a dog.

      In reality most people keep their weird desires to themselves or one willing partner in a bedroom, or in the single carriage of a fast moving train. I think it would be fair to say if board members had an inkling of what other board members got up, meetings would be reduced to an open mike laugh in.

      I fully accept that there are holiday locations devoted to, lets say, the unconventional, there are pretty explicit as to what's on offer.

      Warners Family Holiday resort however, is never likely to become one of them. Most people don't care what other people get up to, as long as 'it doesn't frighten the horses' but they would draw the line at bringing along the kids and inlaws.

      I don't dislike Textusa, I just think her theory is off the scale barmy. As for her stalker Not Textusa, she has my sympathy. He attempted to leech onto my blog several times, but I outwitted him (it was easy, he's an idiot). His grand offer to publish everything I bin got him nowhere, his only respondee was my creepy stalker Tigger, lol. The odious pair seem to have much in common.

      Anyway, many thanks Textusa for pointing out the nastiness of what NT was doing, or attempting to do, with his unwritten 'Cristobell Unhinged' blog. It was heartening to see that very few were prepared to descend to the kind of abuse he was hoping for.

      Delete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 20 August 2018 at 12:49

    Ros, dear, trust me I wasn’t.

    (E)T ;)

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ T
    ET?
    I'm a IT man myself.
    Now really get your hat out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been quite a few ufo sightings in Portugal,both in the past and several recently,including an alleged photo of an alien in 2016.
      2007 was 90 years since the Fatima incidents too.
      Granted 100 years would sound better but there you go.

      Nothing concrete,nor even substantial,but just something to keep half an eye on.
      In the McCann mystery nothing should be ruled in or ruled out in my view.

      Delete
  30. Hi Rosalinda,
    You are the oracle as far as this case goes. Very enlightening insight to all the macabre moves by the McCann team over the years.
    But as you say: After 7+ years, wtf are Operation Grange investigating. I'm thinking they are powerless as far as a prosecution goes.
    All they can do is pass on any information they glean to the Portuguese police.
    A confession by one of the group would be a breakthrough but how do you get that with the "Pact" of silence the group has sworn to.
    Think "Cosa Nostra" - 'Our thing'. These crooks definitely got a lock on that.

    Your comments on Richard Hall are right...he is a bit out on limb but his interview with American profiler Peter Hyatt is riveting and on the money.
    Peter Hyatt's dissection of the statement analysis of the McCanns is a must see. This couple give themselves away time after time. But once again it proves nothing except to the normal person watching.
    In a court of law, statement analysis would be inadmissible or torn to shreds by a five thousand pound an hour lawyer.

    Hope there is an ending one day.
    Anyway, keep up the good work.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JC, I kind of like the idea of being the 'Oracle', but I'm not sure I live up to it.

      As for statement analysis and Peter Hyatt - I would tear them to shreds in moments. That interview - what I saw was two very creepy men discussing very creepy nonsense. My heckles always go up when I see the overtly religious discussing sexual deviancy and practically salivating. Firstly wtf do they know? What orgies have they have been to? How many people have they had sex with? The answers will be none and one. So why tf, are they preaching about a subject they know nothing about?

      Peter Hyatt, a baptist minister and guitar tutor, with very little sexual experience or indeed life experience outside a church, is reading weird connotations in opening and closing doors. Why are he and Richard Hall so fixated on paedophilia? Why are they trying to introduce something out and out creepy that simply isn’t there. To abuse kids you at least have to be in the same room as them, same building is a given. The tapas parents were taking full advantage of the daytime babysitting services available, and enjoying childfree dinners in the evening. No-one was volunteering to stay in with the kids. The paedophile theory is dead in it’s tracks.

      There is so much more to the statements given by Gerry and Kate, both on video and in their personal writings. In fact, I have in the past toyed with the idea of deconstructing Kate’s ‘Madeleine’, literally every page reveals deception, there is nothing deep about the character Kate is trying to portray, that Kate lives a Stepford life in a Stepford world, everything is perfect, no fall outs with Gerry or any other family member. Anything bad that has happened to them is somebody else’s fault, there are no exceptions. Their perfect world was disrupted by someone evil, no, not the fiend who stole their daughter, but the detective who revealed what was really going on during the summer of 2007.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda 21 August 2018 at 15:26
      Hello Rosalinda and others who are interested in text analysis, especially deconstruction of literary texts

      "In fact, I have in the past toyed with the idea of deconstructing Kate’s ‘Madeleine’, literally every page reveals deception"

      It would be very interesting indeed if someone would try to deconstruct Kate’s text (Madeleine). Why not in the true spirit of Jacques Derrida, who among other things, questions the accepted perceptions of oppositions in our culture.

      I’ve only read some selected parts of Kate’s book, but I assume that Kate refers to the alleged chaos and disorder in the Portuguese judiciary (the first PJ investigation), as if it were in contrast to her own and Gerry’s perfectionism.

      Perfectionism is in some contexts closely related to a utopian view of life, and to the dream about a future society in which there’ll be no problems to solve, no conflicting opinions and no need of free speech.

      Some antonyms of the term perfectionist are anarchist, rebel, nonconformist and unorthodox. If only one of the above epithets could be attributed to the McCanns, I would see them in a different light, but as long as they cannot see anything but their own perfectionism, I cannot but question their innocence. However, I’ll have to leave the deconstruction of Kate’s “Madeleine” to others who’re more competent than me, but it would certainly be very appreciated by many if you Rosalinda would make a try to deconstruct Kate’s book, but I suppose it’ll be a difficult task and it’s so easy to me misunderstood.

      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn. Actually, even with the first reading, I found Kate's book to be glaringly transparent. The author naively belies the reader will interpret her book exactly as it is written. That her dislikes (Portuguese police)will automatically become their dislikes. She assumes for example, that the reader will be amused at description of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the first two police offers on the scene.

      Granted the fans will have lapped this up, along with Kate's defiant chant of 'fu**ing To**er' as she was shown video evidence of the dogs alerting to the odour of blood and cadaver in apartment 5A. True, Kate is being brutally honest (for once), but it is not the normal reaction of a mother who has just been told, her daughter may be dead. And let’s bring ‘normal’ back, it’s the thin line we need to judge the world around around us. OK, nobody knows how the parents of a missing child should act, except we do. Sadly, we have seen too many bereft parents, and none were able to go on tour, open an online shop, and dominate the front pages and the news channels, as Gerry and Kate did. Their behaviour was the opposite end of the spectrum of ‘normal’ that’s why it aroused the suspicion not only of the police, but of the public too.

      I’m not sure we can apply Roland Barthe’s theory 'Death of the Author', the book Madeleine is essentially about Kate’s life, her perspective of the world around her. And it is a fantasy life of every goal achieved, every wish box ticked, and then THAT happened. Kate is writing as a victim, not of the predator who stole her child, but the victim of, firstly an unscrupulous Portuguese cop, then secondly from all those ‘nasty people out there’ who torment them online and spread the word of the unscrupulous cop.

      continues....

      Delete
    4. If Kate has a subtext, it's 'look how innocent we are', or sticking with the perfection theme, look how perfect we are. The outrage lies with how could this have happened to people like us. I very much doubt Kate is aware of how much of herself she gives away. As Blacksmith once said, 'Madeleine is the longest suicide note in history. Her biggest fear seems to be, what other people think of her. She dare not reveal any flaws in her marriage, her beautiful house, all her loving and supportive family and friends. They were a perfect family, enjoying a perfect holiday, no rows over who's turn it was to watch the kids, no rows over buxom quiz mistresses and no guilt whatsoever at leaving the kids on their own. The only time she appears slightly vexed is when Gerry starts to organise tennis matches (while others were searching for Madeleine), but she immediately covers for him. A tad insensitive yes, but his way of coping with the stress etc, bless him.

      There is nothing endearing in Kate’s prose - though she thinks there is. Demeaning the police, of any nationality, is not something most of us are comfortable with. She also uses her book to belittle Yvonne Martin, implying that she was a busy body, rather than a concerned fellow Brit who wanted to help. Then, quite unforgivably, she disrespects the deceased Pamela Fenn, portraying her as callous and snooty, which I am quite sure she wasn’t. Again, bizarre behaviour, because the said Mrs Fenn was in the upstairs apartment when Madeleine disappeared, and could have been a vital witness.

      I haven’t got the book in front of me just now, but those are just a handful of observations. Kate may have sold a million copies, but she did not convince a million readers. For the McCanns, every act of damage limitation, seems to have the opposite effect.

      Delete
    5. Hi Rosalinda and thanks for reminding us about how Kate reacted, when quite normal and decent people approached her just hours after Madeleine had gone missing.

      It's so obvious that Kate fears Tweedledum and Tweedledee,Yvonne Martin and Mrs Fenn all of whom tried to do their best to help her. Under what circumstances would an innocent mother of an abducted child behave as Kate did? If Kate seriously wanted to find out what had happened she should immediately have knocked at Mrs Fenn's door asking her about what she may have heard or seen. Neither she nor Gerry bothered to do so. Mrs Fenn volunteered to speak but the McCanns were not even interested. As for Yvonne Martin's offer of assistance, Dave Payne asked her to stay away from Kate. A real bizarre farce from the very beginning.

      Delete
  31. Blacksmith posts on Not textusa blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what? You, 21 August at 23:53, post on Cristobell's blog.

      Delete
    2. NT is making a formal complaint to Blogger about Textusa harassing him and is asking readers to submit evidence.
      He is doing the same on twitter too.

      Delete
    3. What has NT been doing all this time? you only have to look on his site to see harassment.Pot and kettles of a dark colour come to mind.what does it all mean,jack all really except to those who want it to.

      Delete
  32. @09:51

    ‘23:53’ is not blacksmith.

    Perhaps ‘23:53’ finds it incongruent that blacksmith, whose opinions Ros holds in high esteem, has been happily posting on Not Textusa’s (a “stalker”, an “odious” “idiot”) blog, not here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 22 August at 15:08

      Perhaps, who knows? Personally, I couldn't care less.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous22 August 2018 at 15:08

      Correct

      Delete
    3. BS and NT are cyber buds from the now defunct Amazon board.

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous24 August 2018 at 12:36

      That's interesting - but BS has pretended to be friends on many boards and forums - basically to try to get people to believe his BS. It is very significant that he does not accept comments on his own blog - I wonder why!

      Epic fail

      Delete
    5. I have no idea why people are so precious about where others post. I hold John Blacksmith in high esteem, full stop, period. It is entirely up to him where and when he posts. Just as I accept full responsibility for my own words, actions, etc, I extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

      As for 'pretending to be friends' - you sound like an insecure adolescent in a playground. Being civil and treating others with courtesy and respect, isn't 'pretending to be friends', it's what normal adults do.

      I pity you for your paranoia and gloomy perspective of the world around you. How about you accept that not everybody is plotting and scheming and talking about you. And that's a generic 'you' btw, because you carry the same fears as the McCann media monitors and those who troll me.

      Delete
    6. And as we are talking about John Blacksmith, I have to say I popped into his blog yesterday and spent and whiled away a glorious couple of hours reading through it. JB really does have a unique insight into the machinations that have gone on behind the scenes in this case. And I'm going to give him 'man points' for so clearly and eloquently staying focussed on his subject. He is a terrific writer, and his blog is a valuable resource for anyone interested in this case.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 24 August at 20:13
      ("It is very significant that he does not accept comments on his own blog - I wonder why!")

      Now you know where he is, why don't you ask him?

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous25 August 2018 at 11:37

      It was rhetorical.

      Delete
  33. Ros - on the right hand side of this page you have "CRY AND YOU CRY ALONE"

    Why does the link below take you to a diet book:

    THE RELUCTANT DIETER'S GUIDE TO HEALTH AND WEIGHT LOSS: I Lost nearly 5 stone, 3 stone within 3 months

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies 19:59 - I have never been very great with the technical side of running my blog. I'll see what I can do :)

      Delete
  34. Hi Rosalinda,
    You and your contributors have probably covered this topic a hundred times before, but a major element is still a mystery.

    Why was there such blind hatred by the McCanns toward the Detective who was trying to find their lost child - if they themselves were so innocent.

    There are only two people in the whole world (the parents) who know what really happened to Madeleine McCann and witnessed their child's death and removed her body. And they are not talking.
    Everybody else is in a hearsay position, from the friends and family in Scotland, quick to jump on the bandwagon to protect their son and daughter-in-law, furthering the sinister plot hatched by the McCann's holiday friends in Portugal - the icing on the cake for a full fledged cover up.

    I think Kate's hatred for Goncalo Amaral stemmed from her rage that this foreign (to her) investigator actually knew the truth - which of course was impossible to her - because only she and her husband knew the truth. Here was a man who would dare question the word of an honest Englishwoman.

    In a way Amaral's findings are still only conjecture although his book is dead on.

    Who would have thought Kate's nemesis would ever write a world best seller book on what happened in Praia Da Luz and people would be lapping it up - this must have really thrown the couple for a loop, enough to make her write her own book which ironically could have been titled "The truth of the lie" and made more sense than Kate's massive title: "Madeleine - our daughter's disappearance and the continuing search for her..." Quite a mouthful - created to deflect any criminality from the parents.

    Delivering one last kick in the face for the Portuguese investigators. This is the sucker punch:

    If you want to donate to finding the daughter the parents disposed of so long ago, you are quite welcome. Send your money to the "Find Madeleine Fund" - no tax receipts issued - this is not a charity. (Well, who would have guessed).
    jc

    ReplyDelete
  35. ''But back to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour's support for the crime of the century. How do they wriggle out. Well, pretty much as I explained above, innocent until proven guilty and all that. But. Who put pressure on the Portuguese police to 'go easy' on the McCanns''

    I've highlighted this after much hard digging for something worthy enough of my attention.

    Whatever happened to Madeleine McCann was a crime.A simple crime.It may have been an abduction, a murder, or an accident later coveed up after the corpse was disposed of.Whichever you choose it was not an act of war or a threat to the national security of any country.It was a police matter.So, why was the intelligence community alerted so soon and why was their first contribution to tell Portugal what to do and what not to do ?The 'antis' love this area as it suggests ( to their deep cognitive skills) that the intelligence community prioroitised the protection of two British citizens and the gagging of the local police force as they suspected said citizens.Even the protracted campaign of misinformation via all media platforms and the endless funding of OG doesn't dissuade them from their bizarre theorizing.Wake up- you do NOT alert any intelligence community when a child is reported missing.You alert the police and leave them to it.In the McCann case a joint operation isn't out of the question.Interpol are in receit of vast amounts of funding from the EU too, remember.Intelligence communities only jump fast if a serious threat of something dangerous is imminent.Not if two holidayers have mislaid a child.So, tell me why those charged with guarding national security were brought in if this was merely a missing child case ?Why was a media 'guard dog' asked to vacate a well paid job to keep this circus under control ? For all he knew, the child may have been found withing days or weeks.How did he know it wasn't a short-term contract ?

    Blair, and his good buddy, Cameron, were, and are, like their good buddies Bush and Trump, rabid, yet proud, Zionists; puppets to the cause.All named will be succeeded by the same.That's why the Zionist media machine is spewing all kinds of anti-Corbyn bullshit as we speak.He isn't towing the line. The question to ask if you have to discuss political involvement is whose pockets are they in ?Or you could keep it as simple as possible, as seems the fashion. and just peddle and paddle.Peddle the unsubstantiated 'salacious gossip' as you paddle in the shallow waters of the internet's odder corners.

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting post VT and much food for thought. Part one of your post questions the reasons behind the apparent government assistance given to the McCanns. Something we have all asked, as it did appear to be way above and beyond the normal assistance given to British tourists abroad.

      Firstly, we must remember that this case was shrouded in cloaks and mirrors from day one. Team McCann had an agenda - cause as much confusion as possible. Night one, 'no-one is helping us' - not true, people were rushing to their aid, the police, Warners staff and holidaymakers and locals. Social worker Yvonne Martin, was one of the first to arrive, and to be sent away.

      Regarding the assistance they received from Blair et al, let's remember that it was Gerry and Kate feeding information to the press and their objective was to show a united front. Ie, they had the full support of HM Government and the British public - if the PJ dared to arrest them there would be riots on the streets. (Kate pre-empted Trump there, he said there will be violence if he is impeached). Having the British government on their side was a major publicity coup, why else reveal they had private one to one phone calls with Blair, Cheri and Brown? It was another version of 'look how innocent we are'.

      But by mid summer 2007, about the time Mark Harrison was called in, their relationship with New Labour had soured. Remember Clarence told Vanity Fair they were unable to get a meeting with anyone at Ministerial level. Their stay at Warners holiday resort also came to an end.

      The 'media guard dog' (presumably Clarence), imo, went rogue. That is he saw the Madeleine case as an opportunity to live out his dreams (go to crisis guy)and appear on telly, a lot. He left his government position, to work directly for the McCanns. One way to interpret that is, he was fired! Again, his Vanity Fair comments reveal the true situation, all the access he had as a government employee were gone.

      Delete

    2. To be fair, the first reaction of, well everyone, was emotional charged, the asking of the PJ 'to go easy' on the parents, though bordering on illegal, was perhaps understandable at the time. The plight of the couple was the immediate priority. But Just how much the Blair government interfered is a matter of conjecture. It's my belief, they backed away in mid summer 2007, and have been embarrassed ever since.

      As for the cosiness of Blair and Cameron - whilst I agree they are birds of a feather, Cameron had more reason to expose the truth in this case, than he did to hide it. I'm not so sure about them all being rabid Zionists, but I do agree that global Zionists are implementing an agenda, just not in this case. I think what's being covered up here is a sea of red faces. Especially among all those 'get rich quick' opportunists who rushed to the parents aid. For whatever crazy reason, literally millions were pouring into the McCanns Fund, the compassion the public felt for the missing child was translating into hard cash. What the Fund was needed for was always blurry, but however much they raised, it was never enough. That alone should of course raise a multitude of questions, but it is lost in the hundreds of anomalies that already exist.

      Thank you for your input VT, you have raised some interesting points.

      Delete

    3. To be fair, the first reaction of, well everyone, was emotional charged, the asking of the PJ 'to go easy' on the parents, though bordering on illegal, was perhaps understandable at the time. The plight of the couple was the immediate priority. But Just how much the Blair government interfered is a matter of conjecture. It's my belief, they backed away in mid summer 2007, and have been embarrassed ever since.

      As for the cosiness of Blair and Cameron - whilst I agree they are birds of a feather, Cameron had more reason to expose the truth in this case, than he did to hide it. I'm not so sure about them all being rabid Zionists, but I do agree that global Zionists are implementing an agenda, just not in this case. I think what's being covered up here is a sea of red faces. Especially among all those 'get rich quick' opportunists who rushed to the parents aid. For whatever crazy reason, literally millions were pouring into the McCanns Fund, the compassion the public felt for the missing child was translating into hard cash. What the Fund was needed for was always blurry, but however much they raised, it was never enough. That alone should of course raise a multitude of questions, but it is lost in the hundreds of anomalies that already exist.

      Thank you for your input VT, you have raised some interesting points.

      Delete
    4. http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-crucifixion-of-jeremy-corbyn/

      http://www.unz.com/article/corbyn-is-being-destroyed-like-blowing-up-a-bridge-to-stop-an-advancing-army/

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/28/palestinian-struggle-jeremy-corbyn-zionism


      T

      Delete
    5. VT 29.8 @19:09

      You're on the right lines. Even if the 'protection' is supposed to have been summoned up by a local VIP or two on the McCanns behalf (e.g. OC management or some such), how are the parents to have made their plight known in the first place? They can hardly have called reception, asked to speak to the manager, announce there'd been a serious 'whoops' moment and ask for help covering it up!

      FWIW I suspect Gerry had been 'leveraged' into some sort of clandestine activity among the ex-pat community and on behalf of the security services (he wasn't there to enjoy himself, remember).

      Jim Gamble's later appeal for tourists' photos makes absolutely no sense in terms of 'abductor recognition', but implies that a known person of some interest was already suspected of having been in the area at the time.

      Delete
    6. It was Gerry, Kate and their friends who had 'contacts' (in the UK) 10:19, not someone high up in OC management or a local VIP. It was the tapas group who 'hit the phones' that night. By the next day, they had mobile 'burner' phones delivered to them at the police station! Mobile phones they could use to keep in touch with each other and thrown away. Not suspicious at all.

      I agree, Jim Gamble's appeal for tourists photos makes no sense, but I don't think that implies a known person of some interest was in the area. How could he possibly know that? Imo, it was a fishing expedition to involve the public. For whatever reason, JG was as keen to involve the public as the McCanns.

      JG is a paedohile hunter. Slightly more elevated than the yobs who patrol the internet, but his goal and his beliefs are, shall we say, the same, and perhaps more intense. Some might say, he is the one cultivating the vigilante movement. He wants a citizens army, trained by himself, to track down paedophiles on the internet.

      JG was assisting the Portuguese police in his capacity as head of CEOP. But it wasn't HIS investigation and as a 'Brit', how could he possibly know more than the local detectives? Ie. that a known person of interest was in the area. The idea is ludicrous.

      continues

      Delete
    7. Some might say JG was steering the investigation away from the parents and into his own speciality area of expertise, paedophile hunting. This was his moment to prove to the government, the social media owners and the public, how vital the work of CEOP was.

      It was of course obvious that little 4 year old Madeleine's disappearance had nothing to do with child exploitation and online abuse. The internet had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, but kudos to JG, he somehow made his agency relevant to this case.

      Delete
    8. Cristobell 11:21, 11:36

      I suggest you read others' comments more carefully before sounding off.

      "It was Gerry, Kate and their friends who had 'contacts' (in the UK) 10:19, not someone high up in OC management or a local VIP."

      If you re-read my opening paragraph you'll notice I made a hypothetical supposition for the sake of argument - not a claim.

      "I agree, Jim Gamble's appeal for tourists photos makes no sense, but I don't think that implies a known person of some interest was in the area. How could he possibly know that?"

      Er, by looking at the photographs? Again, I used the phrase 'suspected of being', which you have overlooked/omitted.

      "that a known person of interest was in the area. The idea is ludicrous."

      Cliff Richard and Clement Freud are two very public faces who actually lived in the area on and off. Another, although less well known, was SKY's then 'weather girl', Jo Wheeler.

      Who are you to pronounce that someone publicly recognisable, and of interest to Jim Gamble in particular, could not have been present at the time? Pop stars, TV chefs and weather forecasters do not represent the entirety of the human race!

      A little less opinionated assertion on your part might be prudent.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 September 2018 at 11:36

      ''It was of course obvious that little 4 year old Madeleine's disappearance had nothing to do with child exploitation and online abuse. The internet had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, but kudos to JG, he somehow made his agency relevant to this case.''

      The only thing 'obvious' about the disappearance is the disappearance.In 11 years there hasn't been a charge made or any evidence of anything at any point.How does that translate to anything being obvious in your books ?

      The first suspicion of most people when a child so small vanishes and isn't returned soon after is that A- an adult was the perpetrator followed by B- it wasn't for company or a long term realtionship. Unfortunately, to ignore these two scenarios is foolhardy, especially if you are employed by the police.It matters not if there was online grooming or stalking / communicating prior.Your snipes at JG are borne out of a little more anger that he won't implicate the parents . Your bias is clouding your thinking more as times passes.

      Delete
    10. My thinking on this case is as clear as it has ever been VT, it is you who is stuck with the unbelievable abduction story. And Madeleine was not so tiny that she couldn't wander off on her own. What's to say those checking on the children made sure the patio doors were closed properly?

      Child abduction is so rare, I doubt very much that would be the first conclusion of anyone other than the parents and their friends. And how convenient that an abductor targeted a busy holiday resort and kids who's parents just happened to have created the world's worst holiday childminding routine.

      It is bizarre that you cite the non arrest of the parents as proof of innocence. As I have mentioned several times, the police keep all the records, and if someone can bring it to prosecution, even 20 years later, then the suspect is again on the hook. The world is full of suspects who have not yet been brought to trial, it doesn't mean that they never will.

      Delete
    11. ''It is bizarre that you cite the non arrest of the parents as proof of innocence''

      I'd agree if I'd said that. Where did you see that ? Or are you placing words into my mouth rather than tackling the ones I said.That's not right is it....

      The arrest of the parents is never going to happen.Nothing in the past 11 years suggests otherwise.Just because a chorus of thousands chant '' we don't believe you'' online doesn't mean they'll have an effect. Like the police, they need proof or evidence.The police can't rely on guesswork. When the parents walked free after a trial like that the law suits would be rife - and rightly so.

      I don't find the abduction story unbelievable.The child vanished and no evidence has been brought to light to say otherwise.All there is, is bad - minded. bored pseudo detectives with internet connections and that's about it.They support each other blindly thus avoiding any feelings of guilt they could suffer for being so ill- willed and poisonous.

      The abduction story is far more believable than Madeleine wandering off into the mist.If she did that,it clears the parents and friends anyway. She could have wandered right on to the path of a sick lurker.Your point about the patio doors confuses me; if those checking on the children made sure the doors were closed properly she couldn't have wandered outside anyway-what's your point ?

      Child abduction is rare, you're right.So is rape and murder and even burglary. They're pointless statistics as they all still happen often enough.If you want to isolate child abduction you need to check the figures. How many children who vanish, never to be seen again, were murdered and disposed of ? Is that not rare too ? I suggest that most children who 'vanish' are taken.And i don't mean by aliens or whatever other nonsense turns up online.

      Delete
    12. @Anonymous1 September 2018 at 10:19
      VT 29.8 @19:09

      Thanks for the reply..

      Firstly I'd like to get one thing out of the way.The slightly dour countenance of GM as they set off on holiday.The 'I'm not here to enjoy myself' remark meant nothing.It was a stereotypical 'dad surrounded by demanding kids' remark.It was greeted with laughter and a little leg -pulling. If it meant he was going to kill or sell or compromise his child I'm sure he wouldn't give clues to someone filming him and if that someone was part of the conspiracy, they wouldn't laugh or keep the film.

      I fail to see Gerry being close to an ex pat community either.It isn't as though he was well known there or was a frequent visitor.How often had he been there on business or even for leisure compared to Blair / Brown / Cameron/ for instance ? The only 'local' who befriended him and his wife was Clement Freud, father of Matt who headed Freud Communications and was, at that time, a son in law to Murdoch, who more or less took ownership of the case for his media outlets.He( GM) was befriended by monsters.How was he to know that then ?

      If the shield was provided and the incriminating evidence destroyed or lost, it suggests GM had leverage over those he commanded.Which, when you consider that in the cold light of day, is quite ridiculous.He's a doctor and he was on holiday and something horrible happened involving his child.He wasn't a politician with big secrets to use against anyone not willing to hide his guilt.He was a Uk citizen abroad- that's it.The eagerness of so many MPs and PMs and MI 5/6 was unprecedented.But a child vanishing abroad wasn't.So what was different this time ?What made the suits overrule the police ?I've suggested a blog topic elsewhere on this thread.Maybe some suggestions will emerge. I'd love to hear them rather than the usual babbling from the antis.

      VTZS

      Delete
  36. Firstly,you trying to get the comments count up Ros by double posting or have you been on the moonshine again?

    And secondly,VT is ziggy sawdust reincarnated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no concerns with the post count 13:30, I wasn't even aware it had reached such a large number and its time for a new blog.

      Have I been on the moonshine again, lol, no, but I'm sure if I had, I would be as insecure and paranoid as you are.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous30 August 2018 at 13:30

      Again with the numbers ? Are you a rain man tribute act ? VT is Ziggy.And ? You've raised 3 irrelevant points in one short post.None are concerned with the discussion or the blog.Are you trying to derail both or have you been on the moonshine ?

      VT

      now - relax

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvNHXbTL7Oc

      Delete
    3. If VT isn't Soredust,then I'm Bowie reincarnated.

      Delete
    4. @15:20

      Noce one, comrade.:)

      T

      Delete
    5. @18:00

      Relax. See above.

      T

      Delete
    6. VT is Ziggy, yep.I'm both. VT was a little riddle i created when i was bored with posters like you.I was hoping somebody would spot the connection ( VT / Ziggy S)/ I was indulging myself in some harmless play.

      Maybe you could raise a point or even join a discussion some time.Just a thought.Or you could just continue to amaze yourself with your powers of code-breaking online personas and imaginary mathematics. I'm guessing which road you'll choose.What a fascinating character you never are :)

      VT / ZS

      Delete
  37. Hi Rosalinda,
    I just read one of your sidebar blogs from March 2015 and it's very revealing, you say it all.
    To mirror the comments of the first two bloggers that day:
    "One of the best blogs you have ever written",
    and - "Spot on".
    I could not agree more with these comments.

    The jig is entirely up for this couple, as far as public respect and believability goes. There can't be anyone left in the world besides their families and paid lawyers who truly believe the McCanns are anything but a pair of pathological liars trading their freedom from prosecution in the death and disposal of their daughter through the marketing and prostitution of her disappearance into a multi million pound circus.

    The more these two criminals plead for the world to accept them as innocent the deeper they dig themselves into a hole. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

    I'm ashamed to say that on the shelves of my local Public Library there sits the book of lies written by The dead child's mother Kate McCann. I'm not sure under what designation it's shelved , but fiction would be the appropriate place.
    Of course, - no sign of Detective Amaral's book, so that people could find out what really happened.

    If the librarian were brave enough to slip her own copy of "The Truth of the Lie" next to Kate's "Madeleine" book and ever got found out she would surely be taken away in handcuffs and be looking forward to a long prison sentence.

    Don't ever try and mess with the mild mannered couple from Leicestershire.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The jig was up in 2015 jc ? And here we are reading that in 2018. Brilliant.

      ''The jig is entirely up for this couple, as far as public respect and believability goes. There can't be anyone left in the world besides their families and paid lawyers who truly believe the McCanns are anything but a pair of pathological liars''

      It matters more what the police force thinks does it not ? What does it suggest to you after 11 years ?

      ''trading their freedom from prosecution in the death and disposal of their daughter through the marketing and prostitution of her disappearance into a multi million pound circus. ''

      That's defamation of character, libel and slander.Even though it's nonsense, it's still libelous.Unless you have proof of course.Or are you another Amaral wannabe and above needing any.

      ''The more these two criminals plead for the world to accept them as innocent the deeper they dig themselves into a hole.''

      Do either of them have a police record or are you accusing them based on nothing more than your suspicious mind.Sounds like hate again.

      ''I'm ashamed to say that on the shelves of my local Public Library there sits the book of lies written by The dead child's mother Kate McCann.''

      You don't have any shame, jc, don't play . Can you prove that the book is full of lies ?

      ''Of course, - no sign of Detective Amaral's book, so that people could find out what really happened''

      Can you prove that Amaral 'knew' what 'really happened' ? Can his book ? Can the members of the PJ and our own met not read ?

      Your bizarre closing, apart from being melodramatic and unintentionally hilarious, overlooks the simple truth that the librarian isn't responsible for ordering the stock and that the book isn't allowed to be on any shelves in Britain.But anyone can access it online, as that 'library' is open to all kinds of lunatics and the stock is above the law.

      ''Don't ever try and mess with the mild mannered couple from Leicestershire.''

      Why not ? Is there a part 2 to the sneezing fit your mind has just suffered ?

      VT

      Delete
    2. jc September 2018 at 15:09

      Hi
      ”The more these two criminals plead for the world to accept them as innocent the deeper they dig themselves into a hole. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic”

      It's so embarrassing to see the McCanns being interviewed. They always try to make themselves look like victims of an awful crime committed by an imaginary ruthless perpetrator, yet there’s nothing but deception and guilt to be seen in their facial expressions.

      As far as Kate is concerned, she now seems to be so close to a nervous breakdown? I wonder for how long time she manages to "keep a stiff upper lip" when she is associating with colleagues and others outside her own family? Will she ever entrust someone with the whole truth, which she did not tell the readers of her book?

      After more than 11 years, it seems as if Kate still needs Gerry’s protection, just as much as she needed that just days after Madeleine had gone missing. Fiona Bruce’s interview on the ten year anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance shows, that she’s still under his control. In his presence, her speech becomes vague and sometimes completely incomprehensible, especially to those who haven’t followed the case and Kate’s notorious way of avoiding to say anything that she thinks might arouse suspicion, which naturally has the opposite effect, as you imply j.c. and that’s the reasons why so many suspect that she’s trying to hide the truth.

      From Fiona Bruce’s interview and the discussion is about how awful social media is and this is what Kate says;

      ”I think that's true. I think because things like social media, or (Goncalo) Amaral or whatever, because it's so awful and upsetting, it does kind of sometimes stand out more, it becomes more of a talking point. Whereas actually the main thing that we have experienced is the goodness of people and the support that we have had over 10 years, which hasn't wavered in all that time”

      Her evasive answer/speech here is in my opinion very blurry and unclear, and in fact very much like many of her answers through the years, one of which she gave to Jane Hill (BBC) in 2008, when she was asked why she didn’t search for Madeleine on the night when she had gone missing. She then just referred to Gerry and his claims about the first 48 hours being the most difficult and then something about the support that they had had.

      If someone would just help Kate to free herself from Gerry, things would change. She would perhaps talk.














      Delete
    3. ''It's so embarrassing to see the McCanns being interviewed. They always try to make themselves look like victims of an awful crime''

      I can't speak for the Swedish mentality or laws, but abducting somebody's child is illegal in most countries these days and is still very taboo . It's considered by most normal people as 'an awful crime'.Or are you talking about a different investigation than that of trying to find Madeleine ? Have you invented one ?

      Delete
    4. ''Her evasive answer/speech here is in my opinion very blurry and unclear''

      It's neither. It's far from either.Why you can't see that is something you need to work on.

      ''She then just referred to Gerry and his claims about the first 48 hours being the most difficult and then something about the support that they had had.''

      The first 48 hours following your child being taken while in a foreign country would be a living Hell. It's more than easy to understand.Unless, of course, it doesn't suit you to accept the obvious.

      ''If someone would just help Kate to free herself from Gerry, things would change. She would perhaps talk.''

      If she hasn't 'talked' who are you constantly quoting ?Or are you using 'talk' like they do in 50s detective movies ? According to the rest of your posts, every time she 'talks' she lies, either vocally or in print.You're tying yourself in knots, Houdini.

      Delete
    5. @ Björn1 September 2018 at 23:02

      "It's so embarrassing to see the McCanns being interviewed."
      ---------------------------

      Apart from the obvious point that you don't have to watch them being interviewed (and thus avoid the disappointment) could you give me the dates of say - the last three interviews that you found "embarrassing"?

      I ask because you are obviously an expert in watching the Mccann interviews.

      Delete
    6. Hi Anon 2 September 2018 at 12:04
      "''If someone would just help Kate to free herself from Gerry, things would change. She would perhaps talk"

      What I meant was that Kate needs to mentally distance herself from Gerry helping her to talk about the loss of Madeleine from her own perspective. It's too much of "we" instead of "I". Whatever happened to Madeleine, they must see things differently, but I've always had the impression that they speak with one voice all the time. How come?

      Once again here's what Kate said to Fiona Bruce, which you apparently find informative and comprehensible, while I think it couldn't much more inexplicit.


      ”I think that's true. I think because things like social media, or (Goncalo) Amaral or whatever, because it's so awful and upsetting, it does kind of sometimes stand out more, it becomes more of a talking point. Whereas actually the main thing that we have experienced is the goodness of people and the support that we have had over 10 years, which hasn't wavered in all that time”

      Contradictory to the greatest extent if you try to understand the essence of it as I've tried to do.

      "We don't like social media or people who express themselves there, but we've got a lot of support"

      Are those who support then not on social media or what?

      Delete
    7. ''Are those who support then not on social media or what?''

      There is actually life and there is actually people out there in a place we called reality once.Not everyone lives online.

      Delete
    8. "Not everyone lives online", says Anonymous 18:38 online.

      Delete
    9. @Anonymous3 September 2018 at 20:42

      I think you misunderstood the really simple key word - 'lives' rather than 'posts occasionally'. Half decent effort, though, considering where we are.

      Delete
  38. RE: post @15:09.
    I would suggest checking into Writing Academy 101 nearest you and try writing something creative, (anything, for that matter) that doesn't reflect Ebenezer Scrooge.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a short 12 week course writing for pleasure at the City of Liverpool college.It starts on the 18th September and costs £199.00.
      It might be of interest to Ziggy or one of his many aliases.

      Delete
    2. RE: jc

      I'm not on the same intellectual level as your good self, jc( thank God). Can you elaborate 'RE' your allusion to the great fictional Victorian miser who didn't like Christmas and anything I've written here ?

      In good faith, VTZS.( and Gawd bless us all)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2 September 2018 at 09:26


      ''There is a short 12 week course writing for pleasure at the City of Liverpool college.It starts on the 18th September and costs £199.00.
      It might be of interest to Ziggy or one of his many aliases.''

      It wasn't of interest.They invited me to contribute.Alas, I'm too busy. I'm putting together a power point presentation : 'Paranoia and the online lost and confused'. Ticket prices will appear here.You can have a discount.

      VT

      Delete
    4. Hi Anon 2 September 2018 at 11:49
      I said that the McCanns always try to make themselves look like victims of an awful crime. If they really were they wouldn't need to make themselves look like victims as they would then look like victims without trying to do so.

      Delete
    5. Is that a Swedish riddle, Bjorn ?

      This is real life.Real people and a real child missing. It isn't a stage play.No costumes, no make up no script. They only appear to feed the insatiable appetite of the ghouls and the media gluttons.

      You pay far too much time reading between lines rather than just the actual lines. You listen far too closely to what you consider is telling body language and the occasional- in your opinion- vocal faux pas.You then use your own unique bias to interpret it all to fit your own preferred narrative regardless of how little weight your conclusions have. It's OK to admit that banging the same drum weekly for 11 years is boring.But to try and rewrite the whole story and pass it off as feasible is pointless and often annoying.

      Delete
  39. A suggestion for Ros...

    I was browsing the web earlier.I was hoping there might be something concerned with the McCann case I might have overlooked. Then i remembered why i refuse to entertain optimism or pessimism as a rule of thumb - neither are really rational are they. So, after being bored to death by the likes of the Richplanet groupies and Hi De Ho's youtube takeover bid, i gave up.It was like an X- rated Groundhog Day.I concluded that the same circle has been walked in for so long by so many there's a danger of anyone tagging on this late is in danger of walking into a ditch never to return.So, before we all get bored to death by the tedium of the repetitious and dark fanatical evangelism, I thought it might be a good idea to suggest a blog topic for you that might replenish our appetite and refresh the arena in general...

    I think it's safe to say that the majority who maintain an interest in the case are of the opinion that the child is dead.Further, they believe that the parents are, amd always were, aware of this.Further still, this section of accusers are sure that they dumped the child's body.All of this without any evidence that could provide a case for the prosecution. It warms the heart of my cockles to be among such pleasant company.So, my idea, based on all of this, is to try to break the cycle of arguments and bickering ( and complete shite from a few) by assuming, for the sake of argument, that the moral(?) majority are right in what they are accusing and who. I suggest you write about, and question, why their friends were complicit in covering the tragedy up- they had nothing to lose. Why have the PJ refused to follow Amaral's( and some of their own number) line of investigation ? If the truth is known by the UK and PJ and some very powerful politicians, why have they hidden it ? Why have they funded an illusion knowingly ? Why have they risked political or career suicide as well as a jail sentence ? What are the possible consequences that awaited so many highly paced people should their secret ever see the light of the day ? Who silenced the forensics team in the UK and how did they do it and why did the forensics bend so easily ? We're talking about two doctors, not two members of royalty or a pope.If the truth of the lie is that that child was disposed of like a bag of garbage and the disposers were quickly shielded from any blame of involvement-why ?

    Just an idea.As usual it's a brilliant one.

    Vincent Ziggy Taylor Sawdust ( break that code rain man) :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The body was probably not disposed of so to speak, but kept safely somewhere.

      Delete
    2. Unless they're carrying it around or hiding it in their cellar, keeping it safely somewhere is the same as disposal.Either way, it's quite a big ask to sell that to any new visitors to the case as they'd ask you why the police or anyone else have not pronounced the child dead or murdered or even have a body. It's real life remember,not a murder weekend online.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2 September 2018 at 15:29

      The body was probably not disposed of so to speak, but kept safely somewhere.
      --------------------------
      Of course everyone who goes on holiday knows a "safe" place to keep to hide a body. It is on everyone's holiday check-list isn'y it?

      Delete
    4. 21:25

      Apparently, the McCanns knew a “safe” place to leave three children, all under the age of four, alone in a holiday apartment. It is on their check-list.

      Delete
    5. There's no safe place if you're being monitored covertly.

      Delete
    6. 18:35

      Have you been monitoring the McCanns?

      Delete
    7. have you been keeping up with the thread ?

      Delete
  40. Ros - maybe if you take out the stupid childish comments on this blog you would get a more sensible discussion and people who used to comment would return.

    The "ziggy" thing has run it's course and is obliviously an obsession with certain people. It is not interesting to read - nor is it clever (but it keeps your comment count up).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 19:58

      You seem obsessed with numbers and being dull.Can you actually demonstrate the 'ziggy thing' having run it's course and explain your conclusion ? Or aren't you able ? Stick to counting. Fool .

      Delete
    2. @13:33

      You can't stop making me smile, comrade. Good for you. :D

      Certain Person

      Delete
    3. I aim to please, CP ;-)

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous2 September 2018 at 19:58

      If she removed 'stupid, childish' comments, how would we share your agony or sit in wonder at your magical mathematics. Where would you whine ?

      Delete
    5. I'm not bothered about the comment count, if anything, when there are too many it becomes difficult to navigate both for myself and my readers. Too many comments guilts me into starting a new blog, lol.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 3 September 2018 at 21:52

      You succeed, every time! :)

      Mazel tov!

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 4 September 2018 at 10:44

      Bless you, my dear.

      T

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 3 September 2018 at 21:54

      Indeed!

      :)

      Delete
  41. Ros says:

    "they had mobile 'burner' phones delivered to them at the police station"

    yes Ros - all criminal do that don't they.

    ROFL moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros thinks the case is littered with mild -mannered middle class doctors and professionals who morph into the mafia when the sun goes down. They have all UK policemen in their pockets but not a certain online Agatha Christie. She'll blow the case wide open.Her dear friend, Hercule Poirot is checking the Belgian connection as we speak.'Don' McCann, your days are numbered.Bada bing.

      Delete
    2. @13:48

      Yes. Yes. Yes! I'm hard at it!

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. It is your opinion that I view the McCanns as middle class doctors who morph into the mafia. I've never once made any comment that could remotely translate in that way. Don Corleone was powerful and fearless, the McCanns are more like frightened rabbits. They may think they were in control of all the interviews they gave, but their fear was always tangible.

      As for the Agatha Christie reference, I am indeed a fan, but that has never been my approach to this case. I haven't tried to 'solve it', the idea is ludicrous to me, I only have a fraction of the information. I actually ridicule those armchair detectives who attempt it, they use their imaginations to fill in the gaps, as can plainly be seen.

      Regardless, bravo for your attempt at humour, but it works better if it has a grain of truth of it.

      Delete
    4. You haven't claimed to solve it, true.You have spent years dismissing any theory or hypothesis that doesn't have the parents guilty. Which is obviously different in your mind.There's a mountain of truth in that if you read back.

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 10:38
      "Don Corleone was powerful and fearless, the McCanns are more like frightened rabbits."

      Vito Andolini (Don) Corleone is a fictional character in Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather. The Mccanns are not fictional.

      Delete
  42. Ros, I would suggest getting rid of the Mole.
    But...one of you posters noted you need the hits.
    Can this be true.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have some ointment you can have

      Delete
  43. This is an example of what's disgusting about blogs or forums claiming to care about the fate of Madeleine and the failure of a long investigation.They all become places for angry or bitter, bored surfers to let off steam without using any brains. Yet they still expect to be taken seriously.They take each other seriously without considering that their opinions and weak arguments are only of any worth to each other . People of a more balanced mind and temperament can only read and wonder at their general ignorance and bad taste.Why can't they take their demons for a walk instead of plastering discussion boards with them ?

    ''Why was there such blind hatred by the McCanns toward the Detective who was trying to find their lost child - if they themselves were so innocent.''

    Can you understand anger at a man- a professional, experienced man- who was running around in circles and focusing in the wrong area as precious time was ebbing away and the child was out there with a stranger. That's called empathy. Look it up.

    ''There are only two people in the whole world (the parents) who know what really happened to Madeleine McCann and witnessed their child's death and removed her body. And they are not talking.''

    You're guessing again. Nobody has rubber stamped a death. The case is still receiving funding. You're imagining the parents removing their child's body.If you have no evidence to call upon for any of this you need your mind tweaking.

    ''I think Kate's hatred for Goncalo Amaral stemmed from her rage that this foreign (to her) investigator actually knew the truth ''

    Or because he was failing to make any progress in finding their child.Plus, of course he was obsessed with accusing them rather than focus on any other of several possibilities.

    ''only she and her husband knew the truth. ''

    Remind me, why did she hate Amaral again, according to your previous claim ?

    '' Here was a man who would dare question the word of an honest Englishwoman. ''

    Then accuse her and her husband of hiding their child's corpse with nothing to back it up.

    ''In a way Amaral's findings are still only conjecture although his book is dead on.''

    How come his book isn't conjecture too in that case ?

    ''Delivering one last kick in the face for the Portuguese investigators. This is the sucker punch: ''

    Wonderfully mixed metaphor.Did you have ice and lemon with them ?

    ''If you want to donate to finding the daughter the parents disposed of so long ago, you are quite welcome''

    As you are to say where and when they or anyone else dumped her.

    ReplyDelete